Vijaya Alias Ujjwala Babasaheb Bhondge Vs the Additional Commissioner Nashik Region and Others

This petition takes exception to the order dated 05/09/2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner in Grampanchayat Appeal No. 1/2024 confirming the order passed by the Collector in Grampanchayat Dispute Application No. 42/2023, whereby the petitioner is disqualified from membership of Grampanchayat under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (for short ‘the Act’) for carrying out encroachment on the government land.

¶12

The facts which led to the filing of this petition can be narrated in brief as under:

¶13

1 of 6

¶14

956.wp10619.24.odt

¶15

(i) It is a case of the petitioner that in the year 2010 Ramai

¶16

Awas Yojna was launched by the State Government. Under the said scheme the person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community were entitled for financial aid for construction of the house. The said scheme also contained the provision for allotment of the land to the landless persons for the purpose of the construction of the house. It is claimed by petitioner that by resolution dated 30/05/2016 land came to be allotted to the petitioner which is recorded as house No. 685 in the record of the Grampanchayat. It is her further case that once the land has been allotted to the petitioner and the construction has been carried out under the said scheme, it can not be called as an encroachment on the government land in order to attract the provision of Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Act.

¶17

(ii) Respondent No.3 filed complaint before the Collector invoking the under the said provision seeking disqualification of the petitioner for the reason that there is encroachment caused on the government land. Collector passed order dated 20/12/2023 disqualifying the petitioner from the membership of the Grampanchayat. This order came to be confirmed by the Additional Commissioner by the order dated 05/09/2024. Hence, this petition.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken pains to draw

¶19

2 of 6

¶20

956.wp10619.24.odt

¶21

attention of the Court to the scheme introduced by the government on 09/03/2011. According to him the said scheme provided for allotment of the land to the landless person as well as financial aid for construction of the house. He further drew attention of the Court to the Resolution passed by the Grampanchayat, Muthevadgaon, Tq. Shrirampur dated 30/05/2016 indicating that the petitioner’s husband was allotted with the land under this scheme. It is his argument that there is no limit prescribed for area of construction of the house in the scheme. According to him it was open for the petitioner to carry out construction beyond the 269 sq.ft. provided that the cost of the additional construction is borne by concerned beneficiary. To support this submission he made reference to the communication entered into by Gramsevak with District Collector dated 06/10/2023. This, according to him indicates that the construction has ben carried out under the scheme Ramai Housing Scheme 20172018 and therefore the orders impugned cannot sustain.

¶22

Learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondent supported the impugned order. It is his contention that even of the case of the petitioner is accepted that there was allotment of the land for the constructions of the scheme, the construction could not have exceeded 269 sq.ft as provided in clause 6 of the said scheme. Reference is made to the inspection report which indicates that 95 sq.ft.

¶23

3 of 6

¶24

956.wp10619.24.odt

¶25

encroachment has been done on the government land. It is his submission that any encroachment on the public land attracts provisions of Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Act. He, therefore, seeks rejection of the petition.

¶26

6. Heard learned AGP.

¶27

There is no dispute about the fact that the Grampanchayat passed resolution on 30/05/2016 accepting the application made by the husband of the petitioner for allotment of the Grampanchayat land which was already in their possession. The communication dated 06/10/2023 by Gramsevak to the Collector supports the said fact. Now question arises as to whether it was open for the petitioner to carry out the construction beyond to 269 sq.ft. and then to claim that it is not an encroachment, as covered by provision of Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Act.

¶28

As per the case of petitioner herself, the scheme in question caters dual purpose. The beneficiaries are entitled to get financial assistance for construction of house, and the landless person, could be allotted land in addition to the provision for payment of construction cost. The scheme therefore applies to the land owners and landless persons. In this regard it would be relevant to take note of Government Resolution dated 09/03/2011 clause 6 which reads thus:

¶29

4 of 6

¶30

956.wp10619.24.odt

¶31

^^6- ?kjkps {ks=QG %& ?kjkP;k cka/kdkekps pVbZ {ks= 269 pkS-QwV jkghy- rso<;kp {ks=klkBh 'kkldh; vuqnku vuqKs; jkfgy- rFkkfi] ykHkkFkhZ Lor %P;k ekydhph tkxk vlsy rj R;koj R;kP;k ethZuqlkj vuqnku oki:u R;kojhy gks.kkj [kpZ Lo[kpkZus tkLr {ks=kps cka/kdke d: 'kdsy&

¶32

jkT;krhy dkgh 'kgjke/;s 2-5 i;Zar pVbZ {ks= funsZ'kkad (F.S.I.) vuqKs; vkgs] ;k rjrqnhpk Qk;nk ?ks.;klkBh fuoM >kysys ykHkkFkhZ ,d= ;smu R;kauk R;kuqlkj cgqetyh bekjrhps cka/kdke djrk ;sbZy-**

¶33

. This clause clearly indicates that in case land is allotted by Government, the area of construction of the house would be to the extent of 269 sq.ft. It is only when the beneficiary has his own land, he may carry out construction beyond to 269 sq.ft at his own cost. The petitioner admittedly has been allotted land under the scheme and does not own the land. It would therefore not be open for the petitioner now to claim that there is no limit prescribed for the area of construction of the house.

¶34

This scheme, therefore, clearly indicates that it was open for the petitioner to carry out construction to the extent of 269 sq.ft. only on land allotted by Government. Once it is admitted that there is allotment of the government land that Grampanchayat land to the petitioner, the construction ought to have been to the extent of 269 sq.ft. There is no dispute made by the petitioner with regard to the correctness of measurement of the house. Hence, there is a candid report indicating

¶35

5 of 6

¶36

956.wp10619.24.odt

¶37

that there is encroachment on the Grampanchayat land to the extent of 95 sq.ft. Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Act prohibits any sort of the encroachment on such land.

¶38

In the facts of the case, this Court finds no reason to cause any interference in the impugned order. Hence, petition stands dismissed.

¶39

ssp

¶40

6 of 6

¶41

956.wp10619.24.odt

Vijaya Alias Ujjwala Babasaheb Bhondge v. the Additional Commissioner Nashik Region and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaya Alias Ujjwala Babasaheb Bhondge v. the Additional Commissioner Nashik Region and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaibhav Balaram Patil vs the State of Maharashtra

Rohit Dilip Gupta vs State of Maharashtra

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mrs. Shagufta Farooqui Dhillon and Anr.

Nilesh Govind Karale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Devendra Mahendra Singh vs State of Maharashtra

Ms Arjun Sugar Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Its Authorized Representative vs Seetaram Mohan Mahanto Died through Lrs Santosh Kumar Sitaram Mahato and Others